9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue, accepts notice. 4. Mr Maratha cannot but accept that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment of this court dated 17.02.2023, passed in WP(C) 6610/2019, titled Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 4.1 In this context, Mr Maratha says that a counter-affidavit is not required to be filed, as the instant writ petition concerns a pure question of law. 5. Broadly the facts obtaining the case are as follows: 6. This writ petition concerns Financial Year (FY) 2010-11[Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12]. 7. The petitioner had, as it appears, provided services to an entity going by the name Clutch Auto Ltd. (CAL). The value of the service provided amounted to Rs. 8,50,26,199/-. The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate to set forth the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment: "7. According to us, Section 205 read with instruction dated 01.06.2015, clearly point in the direction that the deductee/assessee cannot be called upon to pay tax, which has been deducted at source from his income. The plain language of Section 205 of the Act points in this direction. For the sake of convenience, Section 205 is extracted hereafter: "Section 205 Bar against direct demand on assessee. Where tax is deductible at the source under the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income." 8. The instruction dated 01.06.2015 is aligned with the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the future refund, if any, payable to him. 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to quash the notice dated 28.02.2018, and also hold that the respondents/revenue are not entitled in law to adjust the demand raised for AY 2012-13 against any other AY. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Notably, in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has adverted to the fact that he is entitled to refund of Rs. 1,94,410/- in respect of AY 2015-16. 12.1 Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondent/revenue says the amount claimed towards refund is not in dispute. 12.2 Given this position, the petitioner's claim which is not in dispute will have to be refunded. 12.3 It is so directed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
